MY DAY TO GROWL

Te Awamutu Courier, Volume 75, Issue 6408, 15 August 1947, Page 5

MY DAY TO GROWL

ABOUT THIS AND THAT LIFE’S VICISSITUDES —» AND ITS PLEASANTRIES (By A. Growler) The Mount Albert by-election promises to be one of the most interesting of all the such elections held during the Labour Party’s term of office. The majority of about 1800 votes gained by the late Mr A. S. Richards is not sufficiently large to be an inobstacle to the National k Party. The fly in the political ointment is likely to be Mr J. A. Lee. If that gentleman is sincere in. the political utterances made weekly in his paper, then there is not the slightest chance of Mr F. W. Schramm being the official Labour Party candidate. Mr Lee does not love Mr Schramm, for he has repeatedly stated that he will contest any seat that the exSpeaker does. If only the National Party had a little more regard for the workers that Party would have far brighter chances of winning not , only the Mount Albert seat but the elections generally. There is no use anyone denying that the National Party stands for vested interests. In and out of season its members criticise the workers, and in its heart of hearts the Party is opposed to the five-day week. The workers are not dll good little school boys; neither are the employers all good school masters. Be that as it may, I am looking forward to seeing the ultimate outcome of the forthcoming by-elec-tion. I doubt if the Labour Party will retain the seat. * * * ♦

I w’onder if Mr Holland was really politically sincere in introducing the Bill to abolish the Legislative Council. Both Parties are pledged to give the Upper House “the axe,” but they have been so pledged for many years past. Mr Fraser showed his political skill in moving the amendment calling for the ratification of the Statute of Westminster. The Upper House has always been the “super de luxe club” for good and faithful supporters of whatever Party has happened to be in power. I incline to the view that it is likely to be so for many years to come.

I was a somewhat interested sitterin at the recent meeting held at the instigation of the two Chambers of Commerce and the Rotary Club. In passing “ the man in the street ” referred to at the meeting seemed to be highly amused when he read the report of the meeting in the Courier. It will be interesting to see if the newly-awakened enthusiasm will result in a bigger and better Te Awamutu. It will be equally interesting to see how many of those present at that meeting will demonstrate their concern in the town’s welfare by being present at Monday night’s meeting of the Borough Council, and thus get an insight into the workings of the governing body. If, as alleged in street gossip, seven of the present councillors do not seek re-election, it is essential that prospective councillors should become au fait with Council procedure and practice. Many of the schemes enunciated were put forward by non-ratepayers. I have been guilty of the same thing in the past, but, after all, it is one of the easiest things in the world to be free with other people’s money. The lady who, at the meeting, advocated better footpaths was not far wrong. We know that a new Town Hall, with new municipal offices, is highly desirable, but, having regard to present and future conditions likely to prevail for the next decade at least, there does not seem to be much chance of a. new Town Hall before that period. What is needed is an adequate water supply, adequate sewerage (the latter being on the way), and good footpaths and streets. Such things as aerodromes, creches, community centres, etc., can wait. What is needed, and needed urgently, is an overhaul of the borough rating system that will lead to a more equal distribution of the rating burden carried by ratepayers. A ratepayer who has business places in Alexandra and Mahoe Streets, and used to have private property in Goodfellow Street, while chatting to the writer about the meeting, gave some illuminating figures as regards rates. In 1936 the rate on his Alexandra Street property was £45 5s 7d. and in 1946 it was £94, an approximate increase of 110 per cent. On his Mahoe Street property the rate in 1935 was £4 10s 6d, and in 1946 £7 12s Id. The two sets of figures show the inequality of the rating system, for, to be in conformity with the Alexandra Street rate, the Mahoe Street rate shoud be about £9 10s. In 1935 the ratepayer in question had eleven sections in Goodfellow Street, on which he paid £2l 3s 3d in rates. My friend complained that for the increased amount of rates he had received no benefit. Certainly there is a case for a more equitable rating system. To return to the meeting. Two sub-committees were set up—not an unusual thing at meetings in Te Awamutu. A questioner put a real poser when he asked if, supposing all the present Council, including the Mayor, were seeking reelection would the committee set up to deal with candidates interview 7 more prospective candidates. In plain language the questioner meant were those present satisfied or dis-satisfied with the present Council. No answer was forthcoming to the question. The publicity committee rather intrigued me. What is it going to publicise? The Council meetings are, as Mr De Coek said, fully reported in the Courier, so what will the committee do? Publicity costs money, and is it proposed to w’aste money for (at the moment) no apparent gain? The meeting passed on to deal with the Mayor’s honorarium, and recommended an increase therein. While it is never too late to make amends, I am wondering what lies behind that move. I agree that the occupant of the Mayoral chair should not be out of pocket as a result of his Mayoral activities, but it should not be made just a job, as it was in one town in which I lived. Another thing that interested me was the fact that the two committees set up were asked to <oi tjnue in existence after the elect.ont. Does that mean that none of

those gentlemen is to be a candidate for the Mayoralty or for the Council? • * * ♦ I am mft foolish enough to take sides regarding the proposed war memorial, although every citizen has a perfect right to his or her opinion. It is timely, however, to point out that while Te Awamutu is holding meetings Ohaupo and Kihikihi have their war memorials w’ell under way. Less talk and more action is demanded. If the public of the whole district are to be consulted the best way would seem to be by means of a postal ballot. W*hile writing of war memorials it is also competent to say that more attention should be given to the Memorial in The Triangle. Many of the names on the obelisk are almost indecipherable, so that a good deal of the memorial value is lost. We have yet to hear the views of the next of kin* regarding the proposed memorial; the views of the rising generation are also matters of import. I hope that after 15th September a definite move will be made in regard to the memorial, even though, so far as New Zealand is concerned, the war has not been officially declared finished.

Since writing the paragraph about abolition of the Legislative Council I have noticed that Mr Fraser has very cleverly shelved the whole matter for an indefinite period. He knows his Parliamentary procedure, does our Peter !